Directorate of Higher Education Reviews - BQA BBA - EN - FW - C2.pdfThe BBA programme was first...

Directorate of Higher Education

Reviews Programme Follow-Up Visit Report

Bachelor of Science in Business Administration

Department of Business Administration

University College of Bahrain

Kingdom of Bahrain

Second Follow-up Visit Date: 16-18 June 2019

First Follow-up Visit Date: 6-7 February 2017

Review Date: 19–23 January 2014 HC024-C2-Fb003

Table of Contents

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 2

The Programme Follow- up Visit Overview ....................................................................... 4

1. Indicator 1: The Learning Programme ........................................................................... 6

2. Indicator 2: Efficiency of the Programme ...................................................................... 9

3. Indicator 3: Academic standards of the graduates ..................................................... 14

4. Indicator 4: Effectiveness of quality management and assurance ........................... 18

5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix 1: Judgement per recommendation. ........................................................... 25

Appendix 2: Overall Judgement. ................................................................................... 26

© Copyright Education & Training Quality Authority -Kingdom of Bahrain 2019

BQA

Programme Follow-up Report – Programme-within-College Reviews - University College of Bahrain - Department of

Business Administration - Bachelor of Science in Business Administration – 16-18 June 2019 2

Acronyms

ARC Academic Research Committee

BBA Bachelor of Science in Business Administration

BQA Education & Training Quality Authority

CGPA Cumulative Grade Point Average

CILO Course Intended Learning Outcome

DHR Directorate of Higher Education Reviews

ESC Examination and Scheduling Committee

HEC Higher Education Council

HoD Head of Department

HR Human Resources

ICT Information Communication Technology

ILO Intended Learning Outcome

IT Information Technology

LITC Library and IT Committee

LLC Life-Long Learning Committee

MIS Management Information System

NSS National Student Survey

PILO Programme Intended Learning Outcome

QA Quality Assurance

QAAC Quality Assurance and Accreditation Committee

QMS Quality Management System

SRC Scientific Research Council

ToR Terms of Reference

UCB University College of Bahrain

BQA



UEB University Examination Board

VP Vice President

BQA



The Programme Follow- up Visit Overview

The follow-up visit for academic programmes conducted by the Directorate of Higher

Education Reviews (DHR) of the Education & Training Quality Authority (BQA) in

the Kingdom of Bahrain is part of a cycle of continuing quality assurance review,

reporting and improvement.

The follow-up visit applies to all programmes that have been reviewed using the

Programmes-within-College Reviews Framework, and received a judgement of

‘limited confidence’ or ‘no confidence’.

This follow-up visit Report is a key component of this programme review follow-up

process, whereby the Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BBA), at the

University College of Bahrain (UCB) was revisited on 16-18 June 2019 to assess its

progress in line with the published Programmes-within-College Reviews Framework

and the BQA regulations.

A. Background

The review of the BBA programme, at UCB in the Kingdom of Bahrain was conducted

by the DHR of the BQA on 19-23 January 2014. The overall judgement of the review

panel for the BBA programme of UCB was that of ‘Limited confidence’, where the

panel’s judgement for each indicator was as follows:

Indicator 1: The learning programme; ‘satisfied’

Indicator 2: Efficiency of the programme; ‘not satisfied’

Indicator 3: Academic standards of the graduates; ‘satisfied’

Indicator 4: Effectiveness of quality management and assurance ‘not satisfied’

A follow-up visit was conducted in February 2017 in which the overall progress of

addressing the recommendations of the review report was judged ‘Inadequate

Progress’. Consequently, the DHR constituted a Panel consisting of two members to

conduct a second follow-up visit, which incorporates the review of the progress report

and the supporting materials submitted by UCB, in addition to the documents

submitted during this follow-up visit and information extracted from the interview

sessions, to assess the progress the institution achieved in addressing the

recommendations judged ‘partially addressed’ or ‘not addressed’ in the first follow-

up visit report and, as a result, reach an overall judgement about the institution’s

progress. In its judgement, the Panel adheres to the rubrics stated in Appendices 1 and

2.

BQA



B. Overview of the Bachelor of Science in Business Administration

The BBA programme was first offered in the academic year 2002-2003, and graduated

its first batch, comprising 47 students, in 2005-2006. In 2010-2011, the admission to the

programme was suspended by the Higher Education Council (HEC), and hence, there

was a continuous decrease in the number of students in the programme, until the HEC

lifted the admission ban on the BBA programme in the academic year 2012-2013.

According to the statistics provided by the institution, 964 students have graduated

since the commencement of the programme. These statistics also indicate that the

number of registered students in the BBA programme decreased from 259 in 2013-2014

to 165 in 2016-2017 and 101 in 2017-2018. The recent student enrolment statistics show

that there are currently 71 students in Management, 12 in Accounting, ten in Finance,

four in Islamic Finance and four in Marketing. During the second follow-up visit there

were seven faculty members in the Department; six are full-time members and one is

a part-time member.

BQA



1. Indicator 1: The Learning Programme

This section evaluates the extent to which the BBA programme of UCB, has addressed the

recommendations outlined in the programme review report of January 2014, under Indicator

1: The learning programme; and as a consequence provides a judgment regarding the level of

implementation of each recommendation for this Indicator as outlined in Appendix 1 of this

Report.

Recommendation 1.1: Reduce the number of concentrations offered by the programme.

Judgement: Partially Addressed

During the first follow-up visit, UCB did not opt to reduce the number of the offered

concentrations, which the Panel did not find reasonable considering the number of

students enrolled in the programme and available resources. There were unexecuted

plans to increase the number of faculty members and during the first follow-up visit

interviews with students, the Panel learned that ‘they had to take equivalent courses

when specific required courses where not offered’, which was one of the major

concerns raised by the Panel, as indicated in first follow-up report of 2017. The

progress report indicates that ‘equivalent courses’ are no longer permitted based on

the HEC recent instructions. Moreover, as per the progress report and the interviews

with senior management during the second follow-up visit, the Panel learned that the

Department had put forward a proposal in January 2018 to merge the Accounting

Concentration with the Finance Concentration, and the Management Concentration

with the Marketing Concentration. This proposal was approved internally on 2 May

2019 by the review and revalidation panel that was formed by UCB as part of the

periodic review of the BBA programme. However, this proposal is not yet approved

by the HEC and the Marketing concentration was recently dropped in 2018-2019 in

order to reduce the number of the offered courses and concentrations. Hence, the Panel

is of the view that this recommendation is partially addressed.

Recommendation 1.2: revise the number of both programme and course ILOs to more

manageable numbers to improve students’ learning outcomes.


As per the progress report and the provided evidence, the Business Department has

reviewed and updated the number of Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) at the

programme and course levels, except for the Marketing Concentration which was

recently dropped. The revised Programme Intended Learning Outcomes (PILOs) are

currently six instead of 21. However, while the PILOs were benchmarked, the Course

Intended Learning Outcomes (CILOs) were not. During the second follow-up visit

interviews, faculty members explained that the information available online was

BQA



insufficient to benchmark the CILOs. They also confirmed that they had benefited to a

large extent from the workshops and meetings that had been conducted by UCB in the

1st semester of the academic year 2018-2019, to train them on the use of PILOs and

CILOs.

During the second follow-up visit interviews with senior management, the Panel was

informed that the revision considered the requirements of professional bodies such as

the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, as well as the HEC and the

BQA. The Panel was also informed that the revised PILOs, CILOs, and the alignment

of CILOs with PILOs were checked by the Quality Assurance and Accreditation

Committee (QAAC). The Vice President (VP) of Academic Affairs, Quality Assurance

and Accreditation, as well as members of the advisory board were also involved in the

review and approval processes. The Panel notes that the revised programme

specifications document includes a mapping of the six revised PILOs to four

categories: A. Knowledge and Understanding, B. Subject-specific Skills, C. Thinking

Skills, and D. Transferable Skills. As per the revised PILOs, students are expected to

employ subject-specific knowledge and skills in their area of specialization

(concentration). Critical thinking, effective communication using Information

Communication Technology (ICT), problem-solving and teamwork are main skills

that are also stated in the PILOs and students are expected to acquire. The Panel is of

the view that the newly revised PILOs are well-written and appropriate to the level

and aims of the programme.

The Curriculum Skills Map matrix shows that the CILOs have been satisfactorily

mapped against the PILOs. The sample of course specifications provided indicates that

the current number of CILOs ranges between four and eight in most courses, except

for four courses where the number of CILOs ranges between 9 and 12 per course. The

Panel advises the College to reduce the number of CILOs in these courses. The CILOs

are well-written and mapped to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) level

descriptors. In addition, the Panel learned during the second follow-up visit

interviews with faculty that the revision of the Marketing courses is still incomplete.

Therefore, the Panel is of the view that this recommendation is partially addressed.

Recommendation 1.3: revise course ILOs to ensure that these are stated as measurable

statements and the links to PILOs are justified and complete.


The progress report states that ‘every instructor has reviewed the course ILOs and

aligned them with the new Programme ILOs following internal and external

stakeholder review’. The mapping of PILOs and CILOs specifies the PILOs and CILOs

in each general knowledge or skill category. In addition, the course specifications were

reviewed and approved by the QAAC following the process depicted in the

BQA



Course/Module review policies and procedures, as clarified during the second follow-

up visit interviews with faculty and senior management. In addition, the alignment of

CILOs to PILOs was reviewed by external moderators for all the courses that were

offered in the 2nd semester of the academic year 2018-2019. However, during the

second follow-up visit and examination of course files, the Panel noted that in most

courses the CILOs start with a verb, and in few courses CILOs start with a phrase such

as the ‘students will’ or ‘students should have’. The Panel also found that in some

courses the verb ‘understand’ is still excessively used and advises the Department to

use other verbs that are more measurable and demonstrate comprehension such as

compare, discuss, describe and explain. Moreover, as mentioned earlier in this Report,

the Panel was informed during interviews with faculty and senior management that

the revision of the Marketing courses is still incomplete. Hence, the Panel concludes

that this recommendation is partially addressed.

Recommendation 1.5: develop and implement a policy on formative assessment

ensuring that there is common understanding among staff of the term.

Judgement: Fully Addressed

UCB has recently taken a number of steps to address this recommendation. As per the

progress report, several workshops on good academic practices, including assessment

were conducted by the VP for Academic Affairs, Quality and Accreditation. The

Learning, Teaching and Enhancement Policy was updated in October 2018 to include

clear definitions of formative assessment, ILOs, and summative assessment. The

Assessment and Moderation Policy was also reviewed and updated in October 2018.

This Policy refers to assessment as ‘a collection of evidence’ that ‘comes from different

sources, including examinations, assignments, projects, case studies, portfolios, tests

and quizzes’. It also places emphasis on both formative and summative assessment

and lists various types of both formative and summative assessment. Furthermore,

UCB has recently developed two documents entitled ‘UCB Guidance - Assessment,

Examination and Moderation’ and ‘UCB Guidance - Learning Outcomes’. These

documents include clear guidelines and descriptions of both types of assessment. In

addition, UCB has recently conducted a workshop on Formative Assessment. During

the second follow-up visit interviews, faculty expressed their satisfaction with the

workshops and stressed that the current approach to assessment places equal

emphasis on both formative and summative evaluation. This approach to assessment

is reflected in the variety of assessment methods listed in the revised course

specifications and course files. Hence, the Panel is of the view that this

recommendation is fully addressed.

BQA



2. Indicator 2: Efficiency of the Programme



2: Efficiency of the programme; and as a consequence provides a judgment regarding the level

of implementation of each recommendation for this Indicator as outlined in Appendix 1 of this

Report.

Recommendation 2.1: ensure the profile of admitted students matches the programme

aims.

Judgement: Not Addressed

As per the progress report, students with below a 60% average on their high school

transcripts are not allowed to be admitted to the BBA programme. UCB has recently

revised the admission criteria which are currently articulated in the BBA programme

specifications. These criteria were reviewed by the QAAC and approved in November

2018. As per the revised criteria, applicants to the BBA programme are no longer

required to sit for placement tests in Mathematics and computer literacy. They only

need to submit a proof of English proficiency (i.e. a minimum score of 5.0 in IELTS).

Applicants can be exempted from submitting a proof of English proficiency if they

have graduated from a recognized secondary school or are transferring from

universities where English is the medium of instruction.

During interviews with students and senior management, the Panel was informed that

English foundation courses are still being offered to those students who do not meet

UCB English requirements. The Panel was also informed that faculty members have

provided extra teaching hours for students at risk of academic failure. However, as

noted during the first follow-up visit and corroborated during interviews, data related

to students’ retention and progression was not considered during the last revisions of

the admission criteria. Moreover, no evidence was provided to indicate that more

support was provided at the entry level. In addition, the abolishment of placement

tests in Mathematics and Computer Literacy, deprives UCB from having an early

detection of students that require support in these areas and from taking the necessary

remedial measures. Hence, The Panel is of the view that weaknesses still persist in

relation to this recommendation and concludes that this recommendation remains not

addressed.

BQA



Recommendation 2.3: define and implement formal lines of accountability and

responsibility for the co-ordination and quality enhancement.


As per the progress report, ‘a full overhaul of the academic governance arrangements

was undertaken in September and October 2018’, following the appointment of the VP

for Academic Affairs, Quality and Accreditation in 2018. It has led to significant

changes in the terms of reference of the standing committees, Quality Assurance (QA)

lines of responsibility, and reporting arrangements. Furthermore, a QA Office was

established, which is headed by a newly appointed QA Manager to fulfil the

requirements of the HEC and the BQA. The VP for Academic Affairs, Quality and

Accreditation chairs the QAAC, which oversees QA matters and monitors the

College’s compliance with the related policies and procedures. While the load of the

Head of Department (HoD) was partially reduced, the role of the QAAC was

significantly enhanced. UCB has also appointed qualified administrative and

academic staff to carry out certain tasks, which addresses the main concern raised in

the first follow-up report of 2017 and the BBA review report of 2014. Hence, the Panel

is of the view that this recommendation is addressed.

Recommendation 2.4: expedite the implementation of a recruitment plan to appoint

qualified and experienced faculty members.

Judgement: Not Addressed

UCB has clear Human Resources (HR) policies and procedures, in addition to the HR-

policies & Procedures Handbook and UCB Recruitment and Professional

Development Plan 2018-2019. The progress report indicates the alignment of UCB HR

policies and procedures with the HEC requirements and explains that the

implementation is monitored by the HR Department to ensure compliance with HEC

rules and regulations. However, the progress report did not refer to any implemented

plans to address the concern raised in the first follow-up report with regards to the

small number of faculty (12 faculty members of whom three were part-time faculty).

This concern had also been raised in the BBA review report of 2014 due to the number

of concentrations offered in the BBA programme and the lack of senior academics for

the Islamic finance, accounting and finance concentrations. Furthermore, during the

first follow-up visit which was conducted in February 2017, the Panel noted that the

ratio of part-time faculty to the total teaching staff was 30% and the percentage of

Masters holders was about 56%. Before the second follow-up visit, the Panel was

provided with the CVs of one part-time and six full-time academic staff members and

during the second follow-up visit, the Panel learned that two of the full-time academic

staff have recently resigned. The Panel also learned that no Marketing courses were

offered in the 2nd semester of the academic year 2018-2019 due to the lack of staff

BQA



specialized in this area and the College is in the process of hiring two additional staff

members to replace the two staff members that have just resigned. The Panel urges

UCB to expedite the implementation of its Recruitment Plan of 2018-2019 to appoint

three qualified and experienced faculty members in Management, Marketing and

Islamic Finance. The Panel also urges UCB to address the high staff attrition rate (33%

in the academic year 2018-2019). Hence, the Panel is of the view that this

recommendation remains not addressed.

Recommendation 2.5: expedite the implementation of the appraisal procedure to

evaluate academic staff performance, and investigate staff turnover rate to ensure

continuum in terms of student experience.


UCB has clear policies and procedures for faculty appraisal, which are documented in

the Faculty Guidebook, and HR Policies & Procedures Handbook. These policies and

procedures were recently reviewed and updated in 2018-2019. The HoD evaluates the

performance of each faculty member annually to identify the professional

development and training programmes needed. During the first follow-up visit, there

was not enough evidence to support that faculty appraisal was being used in a

systemic way to ‘identify development needs, staff eligible for promotion and future

leaders, in line with UCB policy and procedures’, as indicated in the first follow-up

report of 2017.

Furthermore, staff attrition rate was high in the academic years 2012-2015. The

progress report indicates that UCB has developed an exit survey ‘to establish reasons

for high turnover rates and attrition of staff’. The evidence provided includes a sample

of exist surveys, which indicates a generally high level of satisfaction with the level of

support provided by UCB for its faculty to perform their role. Identified areas for

improvement include induction, ICT support and financial management. However, as

per the provided evidence, staff attrition rate was 33% in the academic year 2018-2019,

which is considerably high. Hence, the Panel is of the view that this recommendation

is partially addressed.

Recommendation 2.6: integrate and use the reporting capabilities of MIS system to

enable informed decision-making.


During the first follow-up visit, the Panel was provided statistical reports related to

admission, registration, course offerings, students’ Cumulative Grade Point Average

(CGPA) that were submitted to HoDs for review and use. However, the Panel was not

provided with sufficient evidence in relation to implementation, such as: action plans

based on the Management Information System (MIS) reports and follow-up of these

BQA



actions plans. The progress report asserts that the MIS has been further extended and

provides better tracking of students at risk of academic failure. It also indicates that

student progression and achievement data are currently scrutinised and approved

each semester by the newly-established University Examination Board (UEB). During

the second follow-up visit interviews, the Panel was informed that the MIS reports are

regularly circulated to the Director of Admission and Finance, the VP for Academic

Affairs, Quality and Accreditation, and the HoDs to inform decisions related to

resourcing and employing part-time staff. The evidence provided includes action

plans based on the MIS generated reports and follow-up on implementation. Hence

the Panel is of the view that this recommendation is fully addressed.

Recommendation 2.7: establish a mechanism to monitor and analyse usage of

resources for strategic planning purposes.


The ICT Learning Resources Policy was revised and updated in December 2018 to

ensure that all aspects of ICT provision are included. The Policy includes a set of

minimum expectations in terms of infrastructure and services provided for students

and staff. The evidence provided includes ICT Learning Resources audits that were

conducted by UCB in January and February 2019. The progress report, states that a

Library and IT Committee (LITC) was established in 2018-2019 by merging the former

Library Committee and IT Committee. The Committee is responsible for overseeing

the ICT infrastructure and resourcing. As per the progress report, the VP for Academic

Affairs, Quality and Accreditation meets regularly with the Director of Administration

and Finance to discuss resource needs and resolve resources gaps. However, the Panel

noted during the second follow-up visit that currently the Library online resources are

not being tracked. The Panel also noted that the physical library resources are very

limited. Hence, the Panel concludes that this recommendation is partially addressed.

Recommendation 2.8: develop and implement a mechanism to support at-risk

students.


During the first follow-up visit, there was a concern that 81 out of the 200 students

enrolled in the BBA programme were at risk of academic failure in the academic year

2014-2015, which was considerably high. Furthermore, no measures were taken to

investigate and address this matter during that period. The evidence provided during

the second follow-up visit includes a list of ten students whose CGPA is below 1.70

and some of the them were on their sixth probation. The Panel was also provided with

a list of 26 students, whose CGPA was between 1.70 and 1.99. The Panel is of the view

BQA



that the number of at-risk students is still significantly high, considering the number

of the current enrolled students in the BBA programme, which is 101.

The progress report indicates that the process and procedures for detecting at-risk

students was updated in 2017-2018 and that the Academic Advising Forms and

templates were updated and circulated to all academic staff. These forms and

templates are currently published on the University OneDrive Quality Management

System. The Academic Advising Policy was also updated in October 2018, as well as

the process and procedures for detecting at-risk students. As per the progress report

and provided evidence, the Academic Department tracks and discusses the latest

status of students at risk of academic failure in its formal Department Meetings. The

MIS also generates a ‘Semester Statistical Guide’ which is circulated to the newly

established UEB to look at students’ performance and take the necessary actions.

However, since the actions taken to address this recommendation are recent, their

impact is still not evident. Hence, the Panel concludes that this recommendation is

partially addressed.

BQA



3. Indicator 3: Academic standards of the graduates



3: Academic standards of the graduates; and as a consequence provides a judgment regarding

the level of implementation of each recommendation for this Indicator as outlined in Appendix

1 of this Report.

Recommendation 3.1: develop and implement a mechanism to ensure graduate

attributes are embedded in the construction of the programme.


As per the first follow-up report of 2017, the Panel was of the view that graduate

attributes were not ensured through assessment due to the lack of a proper mapping

between PILOs and CILOs, which were not specific and measurable in most courses.

During the second follow-up visit interviews with senior management and faculty, the

Panel was informed that the graduate attributes are set at the institutional level and

these are: ‘Knowledgeable’, Socially Responsible’, Professional’, Life-long Learner’

and ‘Collaborative’. Furthermore, the BBA programme aims and PILOs were revised

at the Department level based on the feedback received from the External Advisory

Board. This was corroborated during the interview conducted with an advisory board

member, as well as the provided evidence.

As per the progress report and the programme specifications, the revised graduate

attributes are mapped with the revised PILOs and programme aims. According to the

revised programme aims, students are expected to ‘become effective business

professionals’, ‘operate in global business environments’, ‘work in teams’, and

‘understand ethical and professional responsibilities’. Students are also expected to

develop problem solving skills, leadership capabilities and life-long learning and

collaboration skills. The Panel is of the view that UCB graduate attributes are well-

reflected in the revised PILOs and programme aims. Moreover, as indicated earlier in

this Report, CILOs have been satisfactorily mapped against the PILOs. Hence, the

Panel is of the view that this recommendation is fully addressed.

Recommendation 3.2: develop and implement a benchmarking policy that allows

effective benchmarking and the findings used to improve the programme.


During the first follow-up visit, the Panel was presented with a newly developed

Benchmarking Policy that was revised in 2016. However, the Panel was not provided

with evidence referring to any benchmarking activities from 2014-2017. As per the

BQA



progress report, UCB’s Benchmarking Policy was revised and updated again in

November 2018. The Panel notes that it includes clear criteria for the selection of

universities for benchmarking purposes. It also states that the main purpose of

benchmarking is to ensure that UCB’s programmes meet national and international

standards including professional body and industry standards. The evidence

provided during the second follow-up visit includes a benchmarking report based on

a desktop analysis against one local university and two international universities,

which highlights the similarities and differences in terms of credit hours, PILOs,

courses available and the percentage of core and elective courses. It does not cover the

CILOs and the course contents. However, as explained during the second site visit

interviews with senior management, this benchmarking study aimed to support

UCB’s proposal to merge some of the BBA concentrations. The Panel was also

informed that benchmarking is conducted as part of the periodic review of the

programme and for the approval of new programmes and courses. Furthermore,

senior management pointed out that the BBA has formed a programme review and

revalidation Panel, which included an external local reviewer for benchmarking

purposes. This was corroborated during the interview with the external reviewer who

confirmed to the Panel that sufficient documents were provided prior to the panel

meeting that took place on the 2nd of May 2019 to discuss the proposed changes in the

BBA programme. These documents included the programme and course specifications

and the results of the benchmarking study.

As per the Benchmarking Policy, the Department submits its benchmarking proposals

to QAAC for approval and once the proposals are approved, formal requests are sent

to the selected universities to take part in the benchmarking process and submit the

data requested by UCB benchmarking teams. The evidence provided includes one

recent benchmarking proposal that was submitted and approved by the Chair of the

QAAC in February 2019. The Panel is of the view that the submitted evidence is still

insufficient to demonstrate full implementation of the recently revised benchmarking

policy and to assess its impact on the programme’s academic standards. Hence, the

Panel is of the view that this recommendation is partially addressed.

Recommendation 3.3: develop and implement a formal mechanism to ensure the

alignment of assessment to learning outcomes is harmonized across all courses.


According to the progress report, the alignment of assessment to ILOs is ensured

through the internal and external pre-moderation processes. During the second

follow-up visit interviews with senior management, the Panel was informed that

UCB’s moderation process had been identified as one of the main areas that required

improvement and accordingly, the Assessment and Moderation Policy was revised

and updated. The QAAC also developed new moderation forms for the pre-and-post

BQA



moderation processes. Furthermore, the Panel was informed that end-of-semester

course reporting is conducted ‘to discuss the outcomes of the assessment and make

adjustments where necessary for future delivery of the course/module’, as stated in

the progress report. In addition, the evidence provided includes a newly-developed

UCB Guidance for Assessment, Examination and Moderation Policy and an External

Moderators Policy, which aims to ‘ensure that assessment and student work is in line

with, and comparable in standard to, institutions of higher education in Bahrain and

abroad’. UCB has also recently established the UEB, which receives and considers the

moderation reports as part of its task in ensuring the academic standards of UCB

graduates.

During the second follow-up visit, the Panel examined the provided pre-assessment

and post-assessment moderation filled forms for the BBA programme and noted the

changes made based on the recommendations of external moderators. The Panel was

also informed during the interviews with external moderators that they have checked

all the offered courses to ensure the alignment of assessment with the ILOs and that

UCB staff have implemented their recommendations. Hence, the Panel is of the view

that the recommendation is fully addressed.

Recommendation 3.4: develop and implement an external moderation mechanism

such that moderation of the final year courses becomes more rigorous.


As indicated in the progress report, the external moderation process that has been in

operation since 2016, was limited to final examinations. The scope of external

moderation was extended to include coursework during the academic year 2018-2019.

In the first follow-up visit, the Panel noted that UCB policies and procedures did not

include a clear description of the external moderation process and criteria for the

selection of external moderators. UCB addressed the Panel’s concerns by revising and

updating the Assessment and Moderation Policy. The QAAC has also developed new

moderation forms for the external pre- and post-assessment moderation. Furthermore,

as indicated earlier in this Report a newly-developed UCB Guidance for Assessment,

Examination and Moderation and an External Moderators Policy, have been

developed.

The Panel notes that the provided policies and procedures are detailed and

comprehensive and that the external pre-and-post assessment moderation forms

require external moderators to write their comments on these forms. Additionally,

during the second follow-up visit interviews with faculty and senior management,

they confirmed that the coursework and final examinations of all the courses that were

offered in the 2nd semester of the academic year 2018-2019 were externally moderated.

This was corroborated during the interviews with the two external moderators who

BQA



were appointed in the 2nd semester of the academic year 2018-2019 and through the

provided evidence. The two moderators also confirmed that they reviewed a sample

of examination scripts and coursework and both were satisfied with the students’

achievement level. Additionally, they clarified that UCB has clear criteria for the size

of the selected sample, which varies based on the number of students and that all

examination scripts are moderated when the number is small. Therefore, the Panel is

of the view that this recommendation is fully addressed.

Recommendation 3.5: institute a regular system of cohort analysis for the BBA

programme.


During the first follow-up visit, the Panel was of the view that the statistics provided

were ‘not sufficiently detailed to provide a holistic progression picture of the students'

status’ and ‘to prepare a solid cohort analysis for decision-making related to student

performance such as retention, concentration selection, student characteristics’ as

indicated in the first follow-up report of 2017. The progress report indicates that

limited cohort analyses are conducted as part of the annual and periodic monitoring

and reviews of UCB programmes as well as for the HEC annual reporting. It also

clarifies that UEB is currently responsible for conducting complete cohort analyses in

relation to student access, retention, attainment and progression. Moreover, the

progress report indicates that UEB is also responsible for ‘ensuring academic

standards, by verification and approval of student achievement in line with the

Qualifications Framework for credit volume at each NQF level of attainment’. The

evidence provided includes minutes of meetings, UEB Policy, which states that

student retention, attainment and progression are tracked and approved by UEB each

semester. However, this Policy has been in operation only from the academic year

2018-2019. Hence, it is too early to assess the impact of the steps taken on the

programme academic standards. Therefore, the Panel is of the view that this

recommendation is partially addressed.

BQA



4. Indicator 4: Effectiveness of quality management and

assurance



4: Effectiveness of quality management and assurance; and, as a consequence, provides a

judgment regarding the level of implementation of each recommendation for this Indicator as

outlined in Appendix 1 of this Report.

Recommendation 4.1: develop, approve and implement effective policies, procedures

and regulations in the management of the BBA programme.


As noted in the first follow-up report of 2017, UCB developed and revised a number

of policies in 2013 and 2016. The Panel notes that most of these policies were revised

and updated again in 2018 and 2019. The Terms of Reference (ToRs) of UCB standing

committees were also recently revised and updated in 2018-2019. The progress report

clarifies that UCB ‘has overhauled its quality assurance infrastructure and policy

framework’, following the appointment of the current VP for Academic Affairs,

Quality and Accreditation in 2018. It also states that ‘the overhaul of the policy

framework and academic infrastructure has been supported by further staffing

realignment to ensure more targeted academic leadership’. The Panel notes with

appreciation the improvement in the quality of the provided QA Policies and

Framework Documentation.

During the first follow-up visit, the Panel noted the inconsistent implementation and

monitoring of QA policies and procedures. The Panel also noted that the role of QAAC

was very limited and had little impact on the quality enhancement of the BBA

programmes and related services. There was also a very limited number of qualified

administrative staff to provide support for faculty members in carrying out their

different tasks. During the second follow-up visit, however, the Panel noticed that the

role of the QAAC was significantly enhanced, as discussed in other parts in this

Report. This addresses the main concerns raised in the first follow-up report and the

BBA review report of 2014 in relation to the implementation of QA policies, procedures

and regulations in the management of the BBA programme. Hence, the Panel is of the

view that this recommendation is fully addressed. The Panel also encourages UCB to

sustain the achieved progress in these regards.

BQA



Recommendation 4.2: review and revise its bylaws and regulations to clarify the

duties and responsibilities of the administrative positions, councils and committees

for an effective decision making and management of UCB.


During the first follow-up visit, the Panel was concerned that several key positions

were held by one person and some of the assigned responsibilities were not carried

out in an efficient and consistent manner. Furthermore, the Panel was not provided

with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there were marked changes or

improvements in the programme quality and academic standards based on the action

taken. As per the progress report, a QA Office headed by a newly appointed QA

Manager was established and a QA officer was appointed to assist the QA manager

and act as a clerk to all standing committees. The progress report also indicates that

the standing committee structures were revised to give the QAAC a central role in QA

management; and to ensure better monitoring of QA policies and procedures, as well

as improvement plans and actions. Furthermore, the roles and responsibilities of the

President and VP for Academic Affairs, Quality and Accreditation were revised to

ensure that they have full oversight of QA and academic standards. Two external

academic consultants participated in the revision process to ensure alignment with

BQA/NQF requirements. Based on the provided Governance Policies and Framework

Documentation and QA Policies and Framework Documentation, the Panel is of the

view that this recommendation is fully addressed.

Recommendation 4.3: establish an effective and formal quality assurance

management system in order to monitor and evaluate the programmes periodically.


During the first follow-up visit, the Panel noted that no comprehensive periodic

review for the BBA programme was conducted. The Panel also noted that the policy

related to the reviews of programmes did not include detailed procedures for the

periodic review and urged UCB to ‘develop clear criteria for the periodic review of the

programmes and conduct these reviews on a regular basis’, as indicated in the first

follow-up report. According to the progress report and evidence provided, UCB

revised its QA and Management Policies and Procedures. The progress report also

states that the Annual and Periodic Programme Review Policy was revised and

updated in October 2018, to be in line with the requirements of the HEC and the BQA.

As per the revised Annual and Periodic Programme Review Policy, the periodic

review of each programme is expected to be carried out every four years and to include

benchmarking studies, market needs analysis, and the feedback collected from

internal and external stakeholders. This Policy also includes a detailed process of the

BQA



selection of an external reviewer for each programme undergoing a periodic review.

The evidence provided includes a filled report form submitted by one external

reviewer. However, the Panel notes that the external reviewer report was in the form

of questions and answers, which are very brief and general, and it covers all the four

programmes and concentrations offered by UCB.

During the interviews conducted in the second follow-up visit, the Panel learned that

the review and revalidation panel that was formed by UCB included senior

management, faculty and one external reviewer to discuss the rationale for proposed

changes to the BBA programme, entry requirements, the programme structure and

year-on-year progression, PILOs, the mapping of CILOs to PILOs, teaching and

learning, research projects, assessment, and student support. As per the provided

evidence, this review and revalidation was a half-day event that was conducted on the

2nd of May 2019. The provided evidence also includes a report on this event, which

includes a list of recommendations and conditions, as well as commentary for each

condition and recommendation.

The Panel learned during the second follow-up visit interviews, that the programme

team is currently working on addressing the recommendations raised from the

periodic review, which had been based on the benchmarking study, and the feedback

collected from the programme advisory board. The periodic review’s action plan

provided to the Panel was incomplete and did not include the responses of the HoD

and the Chair of the QAAC, which is understandable since this event was only recently

conducted. Hence, the Panel is of the view that this recommendation is partially

addressed.

Recommendation 4.5: develop and implement formal mechanisms for annual internal

programme evaluation and implementation of recommendations for improvement.


As per the progress report, the main purpose of the annual programme review is to

ensure the currency of the BBA programme, the appropriateness of the ILOs, and the

effectiveness of the teaching, learning and assessment processes. It also states that the

revision of the Annual and Periodic Programme Review Policy was conducted to

‘create a continuous cycle of programme review, with annual monitoring’. The Policy

specifies the purpose of annual reviews, roles and responsibilities of parties involved,

and expected outcomes in terms of annual review reports, and the follow-up and

implementation improvement plans.

As per the second follow-up visit interviews with senior management and provided

evidence, HoDs are responsible for the annual monitoring and the completion of the

annual review reports, which are expected to include end-of-semester course reviews,

BQA



internal and external moderation reports, and the recommendations of the advisory

boards. The QAAC is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the action

plans based on the annual reviews and for assessing the progress achieved.

The evidence provided includes the annual review reports of 2017 and 2018, which

were incomplete and not signed by the VP for Academic Affairs. Some important parts

of the report were also listed as not applicable, such as: student completion rates and

difficulties encountered in the management of the programme and the achievement of

the programme objectives. Related reports and documentation were not attached and

provided. Similar comments were raised by the Panel in the first follow-up report of

2017. During the second follow-up visit, the Panel was informed that these reports

were part of the annual reporting documents submitted to the HEC. The Panel was

also informed that the QAAC has developed a new template for the annual reviews in

line with the revised Annual and Periodic Programme Review Policy. The revised

template includes sections related to benchmarking exercises and the feedback

received from students, advisory boards and moderators, as well as, a commentary on

the progress achieved with the programme improvement plan. Hence, the Panel

concludes that this recommendation is partially addressed.

Recommendation 4.6: develop and implement formal processes that incorporate the

internal and external stakeholders’ views in the annual programme review.


During the first follow-up visit, the Panel noted that surveys were not conducted for

two consecutive years due to the shortage of administrative staff. To address this

matter, the responsibility for analysing UCB surveys was assigned to the newly

established QA Office. During the second follow-up visit interviews, the Panel was

informed that the newly-appointed QA manager revised all the administered surveys

in line with the National Student Survey (NSS) in the United Kingdom, which are

available online. These revisions were based on the recommendation of the VP for

Academic Affairs, Quality and Accreditation. The provided evidence indicates that the

Student Evaluation Questionnaire and UCB Graduate Exit Survey were distributed in

the 1st semester of the academic year 2018-2019 and the feedback of employers is

gathered through the internship questionnaires and during the advisory board

meetings.

As per the revised Annual and Periodic Programme Review Policy and the progress

report, the data scrutinised for the annual review purpose includes student feedback,

internal and external moderation reports and the recommendations of the advisory

boards. However, as noted earlier in this Report, the revised annual review template,

which incorporates an analysis and action plans based on internal and external

BQA



stakeholders’ feedback, has not been yet used. Hence, the Panel concludes that this

recommendation is partially addressed.

Recommendation 4.7: conduct student, alumni and employer’s surveys, analyse and

develop formal mechanisms for feedbacks from internal and external stakeholders and

ensure that their results are used for programme improvements.


As per the first follow-up report of 2017, ‘no evidence was provided on holistic

analysis of the students and alumni surveys’ or ‘to indicate that employers’ surveys

have been conducted in the last 3-5 years’. During the second follow-up visit

interviews, the Panel learned that the process for gathering evidence and analysing

student feedback has been changed to address this recommendation. Student surveys

are currently distributed and collected by the Registrar, and the QA Office analyses

the surveys and sends the results to HoDs and QAAC. These results are incorporated

into the end-of-semester course reports and are discussed at Department Meetings.

The evidence provided includes thorough analyses of the Student Evaluation

Questionnaires and UCB Graduate Exit Surveys that were distributed in the 1st

semester of the academic year 2018-2019. The action plans based on the recently

distributed and analysed surveys were not provided; however, the Panel learned

during the second follow-up visit interviews that these plans will be incorporated in

the newly developed template of the annual review reports.

The progress report indicates that regular meetings are currently held with the Student

Council President to allow student participation in the decision-making process and

that ‘every Academic Department has held an External Advisory Board, providing

complete institutional coverage’. The progress report also indicates that the feedback

of the advisory boards has led to significant changes in programme specifications and

its learning, teaching and assessment approach. The Panel notes that the provided

minutes of the BBA advisory board are thorough and include several proposed actions

to be taken by the programme team, such as the incorporation of a two-semesters

graduation project and topics related to Taxation in the curriculum. The Panel also

learned during the second follow-up visit interviews that the QA Office is currently

developing an alumni first destination survey, in line with NSS surveys. Hence,

overall, the Panel is of the view that this recommendation is partially addressed.

BQA



Recommendation 4.8: establish a mechanism to identify the professional

development needs of all staff and to design, implement, monitor and evaluate the

effectiveness of a continuing professional development programme.


The University’s HR Policies and Procedures were revised and updated in 2018. The

revised HR Handbook clearly describes the appraisal process, which includes

‘identifying personal development needs and providing internal workshops on a

range of academic matters to enable overall staff development’. As per the progress

report, ‘all academic staff are appraised before the start of the new academic year, and

a reflection on past achievement, including research output and conference

attendance, is reviewed, with a discussion and plan for future development’. This was

corroborated during the second follow-up visit interviews and through the provided

evidence. During the second follow-up visit interviews with senior management, the

Panel was also informed that in the academic year 2017-2018, the Academic Research

Committee (ARC) was replaced by a new Scientific Research Council (SRC), whose

ToRs include research development and faculty professional development. The

evidence provided includes a list of workshops that were conducted in the last two

academic years, workshop materials and a sample of filled workshop event feedback

forms. This addresses the Panel’s main concerns that were raised in the first follow-up

report of 2017 in relation to the lack of evidence related to the implementation of the

newly-developed mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of

workshops/seminars. Moreover, faculty members expressed their high level of

satisfaction with the workshops conducted by the QAAC and SRC, which included

workshops on the NQF and research informed teaching. Hence, the Panel is of the

view that this recommendation is fully addressed.

BQA



5. Conclusion

Taking into account the institution’s own progress report, programme first follow-up

visit report, the evidence gathered from the interviews and documentation made

available during the second follow-up visit, the Panel draws the following conclusion

in accordance with the DHR/BQA Programmes-within-College Reviews Framework

and Follow-up Visits of Academic Programme Reviews Procedure:

The Bachelor of Science in Business Administration programme offered by the

University College of Bahrain has made ‘Adequate Progress’.

BQA



Appendix 1: Judgement per recommendation.

Judgement Standard

Fully

Addressed

The institution has demonstrated marked progress in addressing the

recommendation. The actions taken by the programme team have led

to significant improvements in the identified aspect and, as a

consequence, in meeting the Indicator’s requirements.

Partially

Addressed

The institution has taken positive actions to address the

recommendation. There is evidence that these actions have produced

improvements and that these improvements are sustainable. The

actions taken are having a positive, yet limited impact on the ability

of the programme to meet the Indicator’s requirements.

Not Addressed

The institution has not taken appropriate actions to address the

recommendation and/or actions taken have little or no impact on the

quality of the programme delivery and the academic standards.

Weaknesses persist in relation to this recommendation.

BQA



Appendix 2: Overall Judgement.

Overall

Judgement Standard

Good progress

The institution has fully addressed the majority of the

recommendations contained in the review report, and/or previous

follow-up report, these include recommendations that have most

impact on the quality of the programme, its delivery and academic

standards. The remaining recommendations are partially

addressed. No further follow-up visit is required.

Adequate

progress

The institution has at least partially addressed most of the

recommendations contained in the review report and/or previous

follow-up report, including those that have major impact on the

quality of the programme, its delivery and academic standards.

There is a number of recommendations that have been fully

addressed and there is evidence that the institution can maintain

the progress achieved. No further follow-up visit is required.

Inadequate

progress

The institution has made little or no progress in addressing a

significant number of the recommendations contained in the

review report and/or previous follow-up report, especially those

that have main impact on the quality of the programme, its

delivery and academic standards. For first follow-up visits, a

second follow-up visit is required,

Directorate of Higher Education Reviews - BQA BBA - EN - FW - C2.pdfThe BBA programme was first...

Documents

Transcript of Directorate of Higher Education Reviews - BQA BBA - EN - FW - C2.pdfThe BBA programme was first...